Update on Climate Change Policy (1-7-03)

No environmental issue has garnered more attention on Capitol Hill than
climate change and the associated debate over global warming. This
issue has been the topic of countless hearings over the past several years,
most of which have been essentially economic in focus, although more recently
they have dealt directly with climate change science. This issue
is of great interest to geoscientists, both those whose research is directed
at improving our understanding of long-term climate change and those whose
jobs in the petroleum and coal industries would be directly affected by
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. New interest spurred by the Third
Assessment Report (TAR)
released earlier this year by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Bush
Administration's Clear Skies Initiative promises to keep climate change
an important political issue throughout the 107th Congress and the Bush
Administration. The National
Council for Science and the Environment (formally the Committee for
the National Institute for the Environment) has a comprehensive collection
of Congressional Research Service Reports on all aspects of environmental
policy.

Most Recent Action
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien ratified
the Kyoto Protocol on December 16th in a signing ceremony in Ottawa. The
previous week, the House of Commons voted to accept the treaty. According to
the Canadian Press, agreeing to the protocol would require that the nation cut
greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 20-30 percent from current levels. In order
for the international treaty to take effect, it must be ratified by 55 countries
that make up 55% of global emissions. The rejection by the U.S. of the Kyoto
Protocol means that Russia must ratify the treat for it to go into effect. If
Russia rejects the treaty, then it will likely never meet the 55% of global
emissions requirement for full ratification. (1/7/03)

Scientists, policymakers, and other interested individuals met in Washington
at the beginning of December to discuss the strategic plan for the administration's
Climate Change Science Program (CSSP). According to the press
release for the meeting, CSSP is a multi-agency program charged with ".
. . overseeing the science projects for the Congressionally mandated U.S. Global
Climate Change Research Program and the White House-sponsored Climate Change
Research Initiative . . . ". The strategic plan is available online and
public comments on the activities outlined are being accepted until January
18, 2003. More information on the conference and submitting comments is available
at http://www.climatescience.gov.
(1/7/03)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
released a report on August 7th
urging the Bush administration to withdraw the 2002 US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Climate
Action Report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) record. Marlo Lewis, CEI senior
fellow, warned that an attempt to substantially decrease US CO2 emissions would
be disastrous for the economy, as CO2 is a byproduct of the vast majority of
the US energy supply. The report criticized a letter
sent by eleven attorneys general to the president on July 17th, warning him
that their states would create their own CO2 regulations if he failed to act
on the matter. Lewis asserted that such calls for increased regulation are based
on "science fiction" and criticized the models used by the EPA to
acquire their predictions of future climate change. Lewis suggested that adaptation
to climate change was the best policy to support. (8/9/02)

On July 25th, the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce held an investigative hearing
on the viability of climate models. Six witnesses presented, under oath,
before the two representatives, Jim Greenwood (R-PA) and Peter Deutsch (D-FL),
present. The witnesses explained the process of synthesizing the National
Assessment, described the models used, results arrived at, and the assessment's
reliabilitiy. General consensus was that while the climate models can
serve as a useful tool and are better than heading into the future without expectations,
they cannot and should not be relied on too closely due to the scientific uncertainty
associated with the models. The issue of discussing climate change vulnerabilities
as opposed to predictions was presented by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., President-Elect
of the American Association of State Climatologists and Climatologist and Professor
at Colorado State University. The concept was in favor with several of
the witnesses. The majority of witnesses stressed that while the models
are uncertain, this uncertainty should not prevent sensible policy decisions
from being made, as it is apparent that climate change is going to occur in
the future. All called for additional funding for climate modeling.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)
held a briefing on climate change
science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
priorities on July 23rd. All who spoke recognized the importance of climate
change and seemed in agreement that climate change will be the "premiere issue
of our millennium." The co-chairs of the House
Climate Change Caucus, Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and John Olver (D-MA), provided
opening remarks and were present for the full length of the briefing. The briefing
panel consisted of three speakers. Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., Undersecretary
of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Administrator of NOAA, clarified
government actions relevant to climate change issues. Daniel Albritton, Director
of the NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, presented a clear, concise
picture of what scientists do and do not know about climate change. James Mahoney,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Director of the
US Climate Change Science Program Office, expressed the need for careful analysis
of possible scenarios for the future. He also offered more detailed information
on the genesis of the Climate Change Science Program and laid out its three
level strategy that includes: continued scientific inquiry, increased implementation
of observation and monitoring systems to fill in the data gaps, particularly
in the oceans, and focus on the development of decision support tools. (8/6/02)

The July 11th Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing
on the administration's climate change policies highlighted the vast differences
of opinion that surround this issue. The four witnesses, all members of the
Bush administration, were united in their vision for US climate change policy.
They expressed the need for flexibility due to uncertainty of science, additional
research, and global involvement in any emissions reduction plan. The need to
act rationally in order to avoid economic hardship was also stressed. This concept,
of needing to make a choice between the economy and protecting the environment,
was one that came into question, as not all present agreed that this was the
case. Acting Chair John Kerry (D-MA) was clear in his disapproval of current
administration plans and spent a substantial amount of time questioning the
witnesses about the wording, definitions, and concepts associated with the president's
proposal. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Bill Nelson
(D-FL) all expressed varied levels of concern with the administration's policies
while Senators Conrad Burns (R-MT) and George Allen (R-VA) supported the policies.

On July 10th, the House Science Committee gathered for a hearing
to discuss the president's proposed climate change initiative with Bush Administration
representatives. Three issues were dominant throughout the testimony, including
expressed concern over the potential for climate change, the globally unparalleled
levels of money being spent on R&D, and the need to react to all new scientific
information in a rational way. Robert Card, Undersecretary for Energy, Science,
and Environment at the US Department of Energy, summed up the administration's
plan as seeking a "gradual transition, motivated by prices and markets,
guided and paced by science, facilitated by new technology, and underpinned
by supporting and coordinated domestic and international policies." Representatives
had many questions for the witnesses surrounding the topic of climate change.
Reactions to the testimony and the administration's position on climate change
were varied. (7/30/02)

On June 7th, Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) introduced the Weather Safety Act, H.R.
4900, "to help Americans better prepare for and respond to severe weather
such as tornadoes and hurricanes and to lessen related damage such as flooding
and droughts." In a press release issued by his office, Watts is quoted
as saying, "This legislation will help communities across the country assess
their vulnerability to extreme weather and better prepare for it." This
act would support scientists in their efforts to better make medium-range climate
forecasts, versus immediate or long-term predictions. Watts has described this
initiative in articles in EOS and APS
News. In Watts' press release, AGU President-elect Robert Dickinson
is quoted as saying, "We fully support his [Chairman Watts'] ideas for a 'no
regrets' strategy to provide increased resilience to extreme climate variability
through information transfer from scientists studying climate change to local
citizens and leaders." The bill has been referred to the House Science Committee.
Additional information can be found at the AGU
website. (6/13/02)

Japan and the EU have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. They join 58
other nations in committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 8% below
the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. In order for the treaty to
take effect, it must be ratified by 55 countries that
must
make up 55% of global emissions. If Russia and Poland ratify
the treaty, countries representing 55.8% of global greenhouse gas emissions
will be represented. As a result, US participation is not a necessity
for this treaty to go into effect, but the EU has called on the US to participate
nonetheless. The recent ratifications come at a key time, as the
World
Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa (known
by some as "Rio plus 10" referring to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro climate summit)
is right around the corner, starting on August 26th.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the US
Climate Action Report 2002 on May 31st. This document states
climate changes "are most likely due to human activities," an assertion
at odds with previous administration statements. President Bush was
briefed on the report. He initially sought to distance himself from
the it, telling reporters, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."
The Bush Administration has been criticized, both internationally and domestically,
for its decision to withdraw the US from the Kyoto Protocol and for its
continuation with a "do nothing" attitude on the matter. That criticism
appears likely to intensify now that the Climate Action Report has been
released. EU Environment Commissioner Margot
Wallström commented on Bush's recently proposed Clear Skies Initiative:
''We have calculated that the Bush plan will even allow the US to increase
its emissions by up to 33 percent.'' On May 10th, 13 senators
sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to play a leadership role
at the Johannesburg summit, working towards "effective and cooperative
solutions." Time will tell how Bush will respond to this request.
(6/4/02)

An Economic Report of the President released on Tuesday, February 5,
2002 by the White House Council of Economic Advisers discusses the current
administration's view on climate change policy. The report language
is vague and described by the administration as a "reasonable and gradual"
approach to the climate change issue. Details of the actual
policy are still unknown. This report has caused some to question
the effectiveness of a "gradual" approach. The current administration
is proposing an increase of 3% at $1.7 billion to fund the US Global Change
Research Program. In addition, the FY 2003 budget requests $40 million
to fund a Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) in addition to a National
Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCRI would operate
within several federal agencies: Department of Energy (DOE), National Atmospheric
and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation (NSF), United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and National Ocean and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), while the NCCTI would operate within the DOE. (2/07/02)

A press
release issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
announced the findings of a new report by a committee of the National Research
Council (NRC) entitled
"Climate Change
Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions." The report characterizes
the global warming trend of the last century, examines what may be in store
for the 21st century, and investigates the extent to which global warming
may be attributable to human activity. The Bush Administration requested
this review of the state of climate science to prepare for upcoming international
discussions on global warming. Ralph J. Cicerone, chancellor and
professor at the University of California at Irvine, chaired the Committee
on the Science of Climate Change, which consisted of 11 of the nation's
top climate scientists. The report notes that Earth surface temperatures
rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (about .6 degrees Celsius) during the
20th century: a warming trend that intensified in the last 20 years.
Looking into the future, computer models predict a rise in average global
surface temperatures of between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 and
5.8 degrees Celsius) by the end of the 21st century. The NRC report
also emphasized that "much more systematic research is needed to reduce
current uncertainties in climate-change science." (11/20/01)

On November 10th, world environment and energy ministers at the COP7
conference in Marrakesh finally agreed on the details to implement
the
Kyoto
Protocol, which will commit developed countries to reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. The British
Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, called it a "remarkable day for
the environment" after the deal was reached in Morocco on Saturday providing
a detailed rulebook to govern the 1997 treaty. The conference members
established the penalties that countries will face if they fail to reach
their targets, how they can buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases,
and the details for annual emissions reports by each nation. More
than 180 countries put the finishing touches on the Kyoto agreement with
the United States on the sidelines. Although in attendance at the
meeting, the U.S. was not involved in negotiations since President Bush
pulled out of the Kyoto pact, calling it "fatally flawed" and contrary
to the nation's economic interests. Some see this as the U.S. isolating
itself at a time when it seeks global cooperation to fight terrorism.

Kyoto will come into legal force when it is ratified by 55 nations representing
at least 55 percent of the 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. Because
the U.S. pulled out of the treaty in March, its survival now depends on
both Russia and Japan ratifying it. In hopes that ratification will
be successful, European Union leaders made last-minute concessions granting
flexibility to the rules and additional economic advantage to Russia, Japan,
Australia, and Canada. Russia, for example, was granted a concession
doubling the amount of credits it could claim for "carbon sinks," which
are forests and agricultural land that absorb carbon dioxide, from 17.6
million tons to 33 million tons. According to a November 12th Greensheets,
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reported that President Bush "agrees
with the need to reduce greenhouse emissions," and that a Cabinet review
is underway "to determine a way that can be done without forcing America
into a deep recession." (11/12/01)

Recently released information has provided new fuel for the ozone debate.
Chemicals such as n-propyl bromide, halon 1202, hexachlorobutadiene, and
6-bromo-2-methoxyl-naphthalene, among others, have been used to replace
the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned under the Montreal
Protocol because of their effects on ozone depletion. These replacement
chemicals, however, may pose their own threat to the ozone layer, according
to a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
press
release. Mario Molina, an atmospheric science professor at MIT,
hypothesizes that if enough of these chemicals are manufactured and emitted,
they will significantly delay the recovery of the ozone layer. UNEP
Executive Director Klaus Toepfer states that some of these chemicals "may
prove to be no threat at all to the ozone layer, although they may pose
threats to human health, wildlife, and the environment generally."
He added, however, that some of the replacements "may have the potential
to cause significant damage to stratospheric ozone." This issue will
be discussed at the 13th meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on October 15-19, 2001. (9/18/01)

The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
now has a directory
of online reports on their website entitled The Potential Consequences
of Climate Variability and Change. All published in 2000 and
2001, the National Assessment Overview and Foundation reports summarize
key findings for what the impacts of climate change will be on the US,
including assessments for individual regions. They also detail the
program's methods and assessment process. The USGCRP was created
in 1989 as a Presidential Initiative, and formalized in 1990 by the Global
Change Research Act of 1990. (8/15/01)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
has announced that it is shelving a $100 million climate monitoring satellite
originally slated for launch later this year. Reportedly conceived
by then-Vice President Al Gore in the middle of the night, the satellite
Triana was designed to study the Earth's climate and monitor global warming
from a point between the earth and the sun called L1. From this point,
the sun's gravity is partially offset by that of the Earth, and the satellite
would rotate to keep the sun in line with the Earth. This would provide
a view of the Earth in continuous daylight, something that scientists have
never been able to see before. The instruments on the ship would
be able to measure changes in the Earth's climate with greater accuracy
that the current system of using multiple satellites. Although Triana's
cancellation comes at a time when many are calling for more research on
climate change (especially on climate modeling) the satellite has fallen
victim to partisan opposition in Congress and budgetary constraints.
While Gore was running for president last year, Congress won passage of
a bill that delayed the project pending a National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review. Although a favorable
report resulted, the delay cost Triana its slot in the shuttle schedule.
In addition, budgetary pressures, such as the building of the International
Space Station, have forced NASA to cut back on the frequency of its shuttle
missions. Triana will be stored at NASA's Goddard Space Center in
Maryland. More
information about Triana can be found on NASA's website. (8/8/01)

In floor
speeches on August 3rd, the last day before the August recess, Sens.
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) called for an economy-wide
cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the US.
Although the two have yet to introduce separate legislation on the matter,
their plan would expand upon S.
556, a bill introduced by Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) that limits emissions
of carbon dioxide and three other pollutants from power plants. The
Kyoto Protocol, which has been rejected by the Bush administration, calls
for an international GHG credit trading system that may leave US companies
at a disadvantage since the US has chosen not to participate in the protocol.
McCain and Lieberman stated that creating a cap-and-trade system in the
US would help regain its leadership position in global environmental affairs.
So far, the Senate has been the center of activity for legislative action
dealing with climate change. The Governmental Affairs Committee,
which Lieberman chairs, passed the Climate Change Strategy and Technology
Innovation Act (S.
1008) on August 2nd. However, on August 1st, the GOP introduced
competing language to S. 1008, the Climate Change Risk Management Act,
sponsored by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Murkowski (R-AK), and Larry
Craig (R-ID). A press
release announcing the GOP bill is available at Hagel's website. (8/6/01)

In the latest action on the Kyoto Protocol, international climate change
talks were held in Bonn, Germany from July 16th to the 23rd. On the
first day of the talks, the 15 leaders of the European Union made a declaration
vowing to fulfill the treaty commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
with the hopes of pulling a reluctant Japan and the United States back
into the talks. Although the United States sent a delegation headed
by Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, its position
from the start was that the protocol is fatally flawed and that the US
would not support it. Japan did participate in negotiations, pressing
for provisions to make the treaty more flexible for industrialized nations.
All countries except the US reached and signed an agreement intended to
pave the way for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Earlier in July,
Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the US would be formulating
an alternative strategy to be released in October at the Morocco climate
change discussions, but at the end of the month, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice said that the Bush administration has not set a deadline
for unveiling an alternative to the protocol. (8/3/01)

No name is more closely associated with opposition to the Kyoto Protocol
than that of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who co-sponsored the 1997 Byrd-Hagel
resolution (S.
RES 98) opposing any international climate treaty that did not
include developing nations and was harmful to the US economy. The resolution
passed 95-0 and was a major factor in the Clinton administration's decision
not to seek ratification of Kyoto. Now Byrd says that the Senate resolution
"should not be used as an excuse by the Bush administration to abandon
America's shared responsibility to help find a solution to the global climate
change dilemma." He and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) have introduced legislation
to centralize climate change response efforts in the US as a potential
beginning to a US strategy for dealing with climate change. The Climate
Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act,
S.
1008, amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to develop a United States
Climate Change Response Strategy with a goal of stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere without adverse economic impacts.
One of the major provisions in the bill is the creation of a National Office
of Climate Change Response within the Executive Office of the President
with authorized funds of up to $5 million a year until 2011. Other
goals of the bill include aligning the climate change response strategy
with a national energy policy, promoting sound national environmental policy,
creating an independent review board to report to Congress to ensure that
goals are achieved, and the establishment of a research and development
program office in the Department of Energy (DOE) for climate change response
technology. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing
on S. 1008 on July 18th and passed it on August 2nd. (8/3/01)

Climate change has become a hot issue in Washington lately due largely
to the ongoing debate over the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush has
publicly repeated that he believes the protocol is "fatally flawed," largely
because it puts unfair restrictions on the United States and leaves developing
nations free of the emission adjustments. In Bush's visit to Europe
in early June 2001, it became apparent that he and the European Union (EU)
are very much at odds over the protocol, with most nations in the EU willing
to ratify the treaty. However, in order to come into effect, the
protocol needs to be ratified by nations collectively responsible for 55%
of total global emissions. Without the U.S., which produces approximately
25% of total emissions each year, the nations of the Europe are facing
a more difficult challenge. To complicate matters even further, Japan,
another major player in the ratification game, recently announced that
it would not back the protocol without US support. Japan has, however,
pledged to work with EU nations to convince the Bush Administration to
reconsider its position on Kyoto. (7/3/01)

Earlier this year, in preparation for a summit in Europe to discuss
the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration's Cabinet-level working group
to review the status of U.S. climate change efforts sought additional input
from the National Academy of Science.
The result was a report that came out in early June entitled Climate
Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, intended to
send President Bush to Europe fully informed on the status of climate change
research in the U.S. and the world, as well as how the research should
influence policy. Although the report did state that uncertainties
remain regarding natural climate variation and current climate models,
its primary emphasis was that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in the
Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities." However, while
in Europe discussing the Kyoto Protocol, Bush seemed to place more emphasis
on the uncertainties the report confirmed. Although Bush has stated
he is open to policy that will deal with climate change, he has not some
out in support of the Protocol. (7/3/01)

Despite the administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the recent
NAS report and public concern has made formulating some form of response
climate change an unavoidable issue for both Congress and the President.
Throughout the 107th session, Congress has held multiple hearings on a
variety of issues related to climate change:

On July 24, 2001, the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee met to hear testimony on voluntary
greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies for the energy industry and
other members of the private sector. The hearing focused on general
practices and technologies, such as carbon sequestration, that companies
are pursuing to reduce emissions, and discussed several bills related to
the issue. Introduced May 2001, the Forest Resources for the Environment
and the Economy Act (S.
820), seeks to increase carbon storage on national forests and to facilitate
voluntary and accurate reporting of forest projects that reduce atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations. Provisions of two other bills from
the 106th Congress dealing with climate change issues, S.
882 and S.
1776, were also brought up in hearing discussion. Speaking at
the hearing were administration representatives from the Department
of Energy and the U.S. Forest Service
as well as representatives of the private sector addressing the efforts
of industry to address climate change concerns.

On July 10, 2001, the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation met to hear testimony on technological
and policy options that may serve as starting points for mitigating anthropogenic
contributions to global climate change. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was
Acting Chair for the hearing in the absence of Committee Chairman Ernest
Hollings (D-SC). Kerry opened the hearing by calling for a movement
beyond the scientific debates that have prevented Congress from taking
any legislative action to address climate change thus far. He did
praise former Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) for the committee's previous
work on the subject. Witnesses included a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) representative,
the lone representative of the current administration, as well as two other
panels of witness representing climate change analysis efforts and proponents
of alternative energy sources, respectively. Kerry expressed dismay
that representatives from the State Department and White House Chief of
Staff declined to testify at the hearing.

On June 28, 2001, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
convened to hear testimony on science and technology related to climate
change issues. Witnesses from the first panel were members of the
National
Academy of Science committee commissioned to help inform the Administration
on the greatest certainties and uncertainties related to climate change.
On the second panel were witnesses offering perspectives on the various
technologies with which humans can potentially respond to climate change.
Although attendance was sparse due to a concurrent Department of the Interior
Appropriations bill mark-up session, Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Frank
Murkowski (R-AK), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) were present
to hear the panels' testimonies on this particular facet of the climate
change issue. (7/3/01)

Previous Action the the 107th CongressOn May 23, 2001, the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Space held a hearing to examine issues related to carbon sequestration.
Subcommittee Chairman Sam Brownback (R-KS) opened the hearing with comments
on his legislation that "encourages conservation practices . . . that convert
atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon trapped in soil and trees, [a process
that] helps reduce the threat of global climate change, and improves the
quality of our soil, water, air, and wildlife habitat." The panel
outlined current research on measuring carbon in the soil and the forest
vegetation and discussed current carbon sequestration projects which have
been successful. (5/30/01)

On May 2, 2001, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held
a hearing to gather information on the current state of global climate
change and solutions to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. Committee
Chairman Robert Smith (R-NH) opened the hearing by cautioning the committee
and Congress to proceed carefully with legislation involving the reduction
of CO2 emissions, stating that "an appropriate policy should
recognize both the economic and environmental hazards of too little or
too much action regarding climate change." Ranking Democrat Senator
Harry Reid (D-NV) countered by advocating the need for a plan that reduces
emissions, citing President Bush's energy policy plan as counterproductive
to this cause. Testifying before the committee were several meteorologists
and atmospheric scientists, as well as an energy corporation executive.
(6/1/01)

On May 1, 2001, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
convened to discuss the third report in a series done by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), known as the Third Assessment Report, which
asserts a firmer association between human activities and global climate
change. Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) opened the hearing by giving
a brief overview of the purpose of the IPCC's assessment reports and discussing
their implications for future science and policy decisions, including the
status of the Kyoto Protocol (Full
Text) . McCain emphasized his interest in achieving a full understanding
of this global issue so as to appropriately incorporate the information
into effective policy measures. Several Senators as well as scientists
involved with the report spoke to the committee about the latest set of
issues regarding the state of global climate change. (6/1/01)

On April 24, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the International
Carbon Conservation Act (S.
769) and the Carbon Sequestration Investment Tax Credit Act (S.
765) to encourage the use of carbon sequestration to reduce the amount
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and otherwise improve environmental
quality. S.769 would establish a program within the Department of Commerce
to encourage landowners to conduct carbon sequestration activities in other
countries. S. 765 would give tax credits to businesses that successfully
implement a carbon sequestration program. (4/26/01)

On March 29, in reaction to outcry from environmental groups as well
as some European countries that support the Kyoto Protocol, President Bush
defended the Administration's position not to request ratification of the
treaty or to require utilities to limit carbon dioxide emissions. He said
that in order to meet carbon dioxide caps called for by the treaty the
US would have to perform the "impossible" task of putting a lot of natural
gas immediately into the system. "We are now in an energy crisis," he stated,
"We need an active exploration program...in order to make sure that we've
got enough gas to be able to help reduce greenhouse emissions in the country."
Vice President Dick Cheney and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham have also
spoken out in favor of increasing domestic natural gas production to ease
the power crunch while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
(4/10/01)

Statements made by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman on March 27 made clear that the Administration will
not support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, despite the urgings of
other industrialized nations. Other actions by the Administration in opposition
to the treaty include a March 13th letter to the State Department from
President Bush requesting information on how the US could withdraw its
signature from the 1997 agreement. The US is still expected to participate
in international negotiations on the issue of climate change set to continue
this July in Bonn, Germany. (3/28/01)

On March 14, 2001, House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
(R-NY) held his first climate change hearing. It focused on gaps in current
knowledge and future needs for a comprehensive research agenda. In his
opening statement, Boehlert announced that the committee will hold future
hearings to address climate change policy issues. He called the Bush Administration's
reversal of its position on carbon dioxide emissions earlier that day "misguided
and unjustified." Boehlert's opening remarks and statements made
by other committee members made clear that most of them support continued
research into the still unresolved questions surrounding climate change.
The representatives, not strictly along party lines, disagreed on what
current science is telling us, and what if anything should be done about
it. (3/31/01)

On March 13th, President Bush sent a letter to four Republican senators
clarifying his position on regulation of carbon dioxide. The letter resulted
in extensive press coverage as it reversed a campaign pledge. In the letter,
President Bush defends the reversal on the basis of new information that
"warrants a reevaluation." That information -- contained in a Department
of Energy report -- indicated "that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions...would
lead to...significantly higher electricity prices." Extensive excerpts
from the letter are available in AIP
FYI. (3/18/01)

According to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine
Todd Whitman, the Bush Administration recognizes that the problems associated
with global warming are real. She said, "while scientists can't predict
where the droughts will occur, where the flooding will occur, or when,
we know they will occur. The science is strong there." As for
emissions control, Bush may support regulating power plant emissions of
carbon dioxide under a "multi-pollutant" approach to the Clean Air Act.
(3/5/01)

BackgroundGlobal climate change has remained a pertinent topic in government
and the scientific community due to the serious threats that its effects
may pose to human society. During the 105th and 106th Congresses,
several legislative proposals were made in response to the possibility
of the U.S. ratifying two international treaties: the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
and a follow-up agreement made in Buenos Aires in the fall of 1998.
The Kyoto Protocol is designed to decrease global carbon dioxide emissions
in an agreement between many nations. The discussions for this measure
began in 1997 but the treaty cannot go into effect until it is ratified
by major carbon dioxide emitters such as the United States. The measure
has not been ratified by the U.S. primarily because of congressional critics
who see the treaty as deeply flawed. In particular they point out
that it fails to hold developing nations, such as China and India, to the
same standards as developed nations in greenhouse gas emissions.
Language attached to appropriations bills enacted in the 106th Congress
ensure that the federal government does not pursue the goals of the Kyoto
Protocol before the Senate has considered the treaty.

In November 2000, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCC) held the sixth Conference
of the Parties (COP6)
at the Hague to discuss ways in which nations and other organizations represented
could implement the Kyoto
Protocol and the goals set forth at the Convention
on Climate Change. Negotiations at the Hague ultimately
broke down over disagreements between the United States and the European
Union on the role of carbon sequestration. Language in the Kyoto
Protocol focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions but does not prohibit
developed countries from receiving credit for sequestering carbon in long-term
"sinks" such as forests and agricultural soil or by injection into deep
wells.